Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TwinBahamut" data-source="post: 6005387" data-attributes="member: 32536">I'll admit I wasn't expecting to get two replies to that comment this quickly. You both say some similar things that I want to address, though I apologize if it seems like I'm glossing over some of the details.I can understand some complaints about how wildshape as it was in 3E had some problems, but I don't think that making it a spell solves those problems in a good way. If you take that sort of step, then the druid quickly becomes a class that is just a cleric or priest with a different spell list. It loses a lot of its own identity and squanders some of the great potential it has to be very unique. As I said, wildshape is the kind of ability you could build an entire class around, and there is no better class for that role than the Druid.I will also say that I don't understand the argument being made that we should build to Druid to accommodate people who don't like wildshape. This seems rather backwards to me. From my own perspective, people who don't want to use one of the most iconic mechanics for a class should simply be directed to a different class (this is one reason I like the idea of having many class options). After all, a class is primarily a collection of mechanics, so I have trouble understanding any other reason for picking a particular class.This is also a place where I most strongly believe that wildshape and turn undead can't be compared. A cleric without turn undead is still a cleric, but I don't feel that a druid without wildshape is still a druid. This is probably one of those more ephemeral things that not everyone will agree with me about, but I can't help but feel that way after years of playing videogames that define Druids as people who wildshape, yet I've almost never seen Turn Undead come up ever, anywhere.</blockquote>

Verification